If they film all that the movies would be 7 hours long. I'm a reader of the books and I think they have done a good job with the movies. Especially Azkaban.

My bad on that one. yes, You are correct and I put the weasly's when I was thinking of the durselys.

Just wanted to clarify that I have read all the books, multiple times, and very much enjoyed the film version of Azkaban. But I also understand the difficulty of converting a novel into a film and that things will be left out. If you go into adaptations looking for omissions to be angry about then you are setting yourself up to be angered. You can't sit and think, "if they don't include the third paragraph of page 137 then I'm going to be pissed." Its unrealistic to have such expectations.

I'll agree that the first two movies are unsatisfying but this one was very well done.

Did anyone see this in IMAX over the weekend?

Was the IMAX version in it's original aspect ratio of 2.40:1 similar to the IMAX releases of the Matrix sequels?

I've read all the books and still feel that Azkaban is an incredibly well done movie. I'm sorry that these movies didn't deliver the visual unabridged books on tape that some people were expecting, but they have to makes cuts and take liberties at some point. These movies are about Harry Potter, and thankfully Cuaron realized that and chose to focus on the growth of Potter instead of including every little detail and backstory, making a mess of the movie. Azkaban was actually exciting because of the fast, streamlined plot.

While I prefer the EE of FOTR, the EE of TTT is long and drawn out, and it was the first movie that I actually fell asleep during. More unimportant scenes does not make a better movie.

On a side note, one of my favorite moments was when Sirius screams, . Gary Oldman is the shit.

Great movie, best one of the series in my opinion; now to read the book. One bad thing, I realized today after I saw the movie that my cat is now evil; as I named him after the bad "guy" in this movie.

as a Big fan of the books and the movies I really liked it. I liked what the new director brought to it.

I did have trouble with the totally new sets. They seemed more real but I found the difference distracting.

I liked how they ended it, but I wish they had Harry going back to the Dursleys and teling them that since my godfather is a mad wizard at large you had better treat me better.

Time to reread the book!

It was a very funny skit...you can watch it here and figure it out yourself.

http://www.muchosucko.com/video-snlharrypotter.html

That's quite a sentence.

In any case, there's no need to be defensive, because I wasn't really twisting your words around intentionally, as I wasn't (and am still not) quite sure what you're getting at.

Maybe I'm alone on this, but most of the omitted details people are talking about (who made the map, why and how Buckbeak was sentenced, why there was a stag) were really clear to me. I haven't read the third book (read the first two), but I didn't have any problem following the storyline.

I think the problem here is the gap between the language of cinema and books. You either conform one to fit with the other (as with POA), or ignore the difference (as with the first two films). Personally, I just prefer the former approach. I will agree with you about the sentence above - it would have been nice to see Black escape. However, again, when I found out about his canine qualities, and thought back to the beginning, I just assumed (apparently correctly).

Saw it last night, finally! I think that WB made the right decision by seeking a new director for the third one. Cuaron really seemed to shed the series of its "play to the kids first" image and succeeded in making the movie look more realistic(as real as possible anyway) and mature. There's no denying that stylistically this movie was totally different than the other two and I think that had Colombus stayed on board there is a good chance he might have made it start to get old. Kudos to all involved, and especially Daniel Radcliffe, who gives Potter the depth and complexity we so lack with the Skywalkers.

I have read the book three times. I loved the movie. The jury's still out on how it compares to the other two, but I definitely loved it.

This was my favorite HP movie so far. It was interesting and kept me entertained throughout.

I would imagine that GoF will remove all the scenes of the Quidditch World Cup. Too much effort to create any of the quidditch stuff.

Too bad. That's one of the best Dursley's pieces.

GOF is going to suck big time.

I doubt it ... so much happens during that period that affects the plot for the rest of the book ....

I'm not too upset with the removal of the Dursley's ... the are flat, static characters through the first four books, so even though the events at the beginning of GoF are funny, they don't really say anything new about the characters.

It wouldn't surprise me if they cut out the Quidditch World Cup final, but I can see it being very tricky to write around, because as someone else said, lots of important things happen that set up the plot for the rest of the story.

I don't think the effort involved in creating the Quidditch stuff would be a problem. It'd be no more complicated than the stuff in CoS, and this movie has an insanely huge budget.

After the first book, like someone else said, there isn't really anything new with the Dursley's until OofP.

If you think the Dursleys are the high point of the books, I don't think there is any chance of pleasing you with a film version.

Harry Potter 3 was a disapointment. It was okay. but lacked the magic of the first 2 movies. I loved all the books and first 2 movies but this movie lacked the magic of the above. very choppy, lacked significant scenes from the book, just didn't work as well. i like alphonso cuaron as a director, lttle princess, etc. but his work here was not great. I guess you can tell from the film that he was not a Harry Potter fan. Yes the film needed to be darker but changes were made that didn't work and lacked the magic. gary oldham was okay though i thought sirius black was supposed to be good looking. michael gambon as dumbledore stunk.

Sirius Black *was* good looking, but twelve years in a dank cell with only the Dementors for company would make even the best looking man look as if he hasn't bathed in a decade or more. If you read the books, you'll notice that Sirius is described as having a "deadeyed" expression, and though there is a glimmer of his good looks from his youth, he is mostly a haunted man.

Gary Oldman in his youth was a very good looking man. In the Sirius costume, there is a glimmer of it, but mostly just a raving mad man.

I'm always amused by all the rabid fans who insist that Sirius is the best looking thing on the planet (even after his stint at Azkaban) and Lupin is *shudder* cute. I have a feeling that all the slash and fanfic writers out there are skewing what these characters are supposed to be, and too many people are thinking of these characters in that light instead of how JKR originally described them.

*shrug* Fans...

I agree but i don't think that there was nearly enough scenes with Dumbledore in it. Dumbledoere was suposed to be protecting Harry and they didn't really play on thier relationship as they have done in the past movies!
It's hard to see a new dumbledore, but they can't cut him out of the movie.

Just curious if the people who are remarking on the lack of uniforms have ever had to wear them for school? I didn't have a uniform in high school, but we did have a fairly strict dress code (coat and tie in one school and collared shirts and dress slacks in the other), and in my experience, the movies depiction of teenagers trying to get away with as much as possible with the clothing was dead on. When you've got a dress code or a uniform like that, you push the limits as much as possible and, as soon as you can (generally, when you are not in class), you change out of them into normal clothes. I found it to be extremely accurate and made the characters more believable to me.

Additionally, it is a fairly natural progression for kids in a situation like that (i.e., boarding school) to start pushing the limits as they get older and begin feel more comfortable with their surroundings. The younger ones are much more prone to stick to the rules more closely (as the characters seemed to in the earlier movies).I'm not doubting you here, but I am curious to see how close your thoughts on the omitted details are to the way that they are presented in the book. Since you haven't read the book and are basing it on the movie alone, what do you think are the answers to those three questions ([1] Who made the map?, [2] Why and how Buckbeak was sentenced?, and [3] Why there was a stag?)?

I know this wasn't directed at me but:

1) It doesn't matter to the plot of THIS movie. In the latest Entertainment Weekly they said they were saving the explanation for another movie.

2) I don't even remember this being a big part of the book (which I've read twice,) but in the movie Hagrid announced that he was being put to death. Malfoy had told Hagrid "Wait until my father hears about this" after he was attacked. What else do you need to know? Again, it doesn't matter to the plot of THIS movie.

3) See answer 1.

Frankly, some things HAVE to be cut for an adaptation. There is just no way about it. CC's films attempted to keep everything in even if it affected the pacing of the movie.

And besides all of that, JK Rowling approved every single cut. When the author of the book says it's okay, methinks the fans should simmer down.